アメリカ合衆国

Highlights Chart 1Softer PMIs In December A bond bear market looked to be underway in December, with the 10-year Treasury yield reaching as high as 1.93% just before Christmas. But two developments during the past week drove it back down to 1.80%, and could prevent yields from rising during the next month or two. Five macro factors are important for US bond yields (global growth, the output gap, the US dollar, policy uncertainty and sentiment). Two of those factors flipped from sending bond-bearish to bond-bullish signals during the past week. First, policy uncertainty had been ebbing due to the US/China phase 1 trade deal, but it ramped up again due to US military conflict with Iran. Second, our preferred global growth indicators had been showing tentative signs of bottoming, but reversed course in December. The Global Manufacturing PMI fell from 50.3 to 50.1 in December, and the US ISM Manufacturing PMI fell from 48.1 to 47.2 (Chart 1). We continue to forecast higher bond yields in 2020, but recent events have likely postponed any significant sell-off. Stay tuned. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 119 basis points in December and by 619 bps in 2019. In our 2020 Key Views report, we argued that the credit cycle will remain supportive for corporate bonds this year, but that we prefer to take credit risk in the high-yield space where valuation is more attractive.1 With inflation expectations still depressed, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. This accommodative stance will encourage banks to keep the credit taps running, leading to tight spreads. The third quarter’s tightening of C&I lending standards is a risk to our view (Chart 2), especially if this month’s survey reveals that the tightening continued into Q4. We don’t think that will be the case, given that the yield curve – another indicator of monetary conditions – steepened sharply in the fourth quarter. As stated above, valuation is the main hurdle for investment grade corporates. Spreads for all credit tiers are below our targets (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. We also recommend increasing exposure to Agency MBS in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher.  Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 202 basis points in December, and by 886 bps in 2019. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 34 bps on the month and currently sits at 335 bps, 102 bps above our target (Chart 3). With attractive valuation, accommodative monetary conditions and a looming recovery in global economic growth, we expect junk spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months. One notable development from last year is that the Ba and B credit tiers outperformed the Caa credit tier. This is unusual in an environment of positive excess junk returns. We analyzed the divergence between Caa and the rest of the junk index in a recent report and came to two conclusions.3 First, the historical data show that 12-month periods of overall junk bond outperformance are more likely to be followed by underperformance if Caa is the worst performing credit tier. Second, we can identify several reasons for 2019’s Caa spread widening that make us inclined to downplay any negative signal. Specifically, we note that the Caa credit tier’s exposure to the shale oil sector is responsible for the bulk of 2019’s underperformance (bottom panel). The conflict between the US and Iran should boost oil prices during the next few months, benefiting the US shale sector and causing some of this divergence to unwind. MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in December, and by 56 basis points in 2019. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 10 bps on the month, driven by an 8 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 2 bps decline in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). We recommend an overweight allocation to Agency MBS, particularly relative to corporate bonds rated A or higher, for three reasons.4 First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is 45 bps (Chart 4). This is only 7 bps below the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (panel 4). Also, spreads for all investment grade corporate bond credit tiers are below our targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency MBS plot well to the right of investment grade corporates. This means that the sector is less likely to see losses versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most homeowners have already had at least one opportunity to refinance. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 54 basis points in December, and by 252 bps in 2019. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 175 bps on the month, and by 697 bps in 2019. Local Authority and Foreign Agency bonds outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 41 bps and 73 bps, respectively, in December, and by 287 bps and 341 bps, respectively, in 2019. Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals both performed in line with Treasuries in December, but outperformed by 51 bps and 36 bps, respectively, in 2019. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated sovereign bonds, given that spreads remain expensive compared to US corporate credit (Chart 5). However, we noted in a recent report that Mexican and Saudi Arabian sovereigns look attractive on a risk/reward basis.5 This is also true for Local Authorities and Foreign Agencies, as shown in the Bond Map in Appendix C. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that worries about Mexico’s fiscal position are overblown, and that bond yields embed too high of a risk premium (bottom panel).6 Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 51 basis points in December, and by 57 bps in 2019 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 6% in December, and currently sits at 78% (Chart 6). We upgraded municipal bonds in early October, as yield ratios had become significantly more attractive, especially at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2).7 Yield ratios have tightened a lot since then, but value remains at long maturities. Specifically, 2-year, 5-year and 10-year M/T yield ratios are all below average pre-crisis levels at 66%, 68% and 78%, respectively. But 20-year and 30-year yield ratios stand at 87% and 91%, respectively, above average pre-crisis levels. Fundamentally, state and local government balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage has improved considerably in recent quarters (bottom panel). Both of these trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outpace downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Long-dated Treasury yields rose in December, while the Fed’s forward guidance kept short-maturity yields low. The result is that the 2/10 slope steepened 17 bps in December and the 5/30 slope steepened 11 bps (Chart 7). Looking back on 2019 we find that, despite August’s curve inversion scare, the 2/10 slope steepened 13 bps on the year and the 5/30 slope steepened 19 bps. In our 2020 Key Views report, we argued that the 2/10 Treasury slope will stay positive in 2020, in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps.8 We also expect further modest steepening during the next few months as the Fed continues to hold down the front-end of the curve in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations, even as improving global growth pushes long-dated yields higher. Despite our outlook for modest curve steepening, we continue to recommend holding a barbelled Treasury portfolio. Specifically, we favor holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 5-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. This position offers positive carry (bottom panel), due to the extreme overvaluation of the 5-year note. It also looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 112 basis points in December, and by 42 bps in 2019. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 16 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.78%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 14 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.86%. Both rates remain well below the 2.3%-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations remains stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target since mid-2018 (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low. It takes time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment, but even accounting for those long lags, our Adaptive Expectations Model pegs the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate as 16 bps too low (panel 4).9 It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor long-term inflation expectations. As a result, the actual inflation data will lead expectations higher, causing the TIPS breakeven inflation curve to flatten.10 Any politically-driven increase in oil prices will only exacerbate TIPS breakeven curve flattening. ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in December, but outperformed the benchmark by 69 bps in 2019. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 37 bps, 3 bps above its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS ranks among the most defensive US spread products, and also offers more expected return than other low-risk sectors such as Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals. However, we remain wary of allocating too much to consumer ABS because credit trends continue to shift in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate remains low, but has put in a clear bottom. This is also true for the household interest expense ratio (panel 3). Senior Loan Officers also continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). All in all, our favorable outlook for global growth causes us to shy away from defensive spread products, and deteriorating credit metrics make consumer ABS even less appealing. Stay underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in December, and by 233 bps in 2019. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 71 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat above levels seen during the past two years (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate (CRE) is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) in an environment of tepid demand. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that banks saw slightly stronger demand for nonfarm nonresidential CRE loans in Q3, after four consecutive quarters of falling demand (bottom panel). Despite the poor fundamental picture, our Excess Return Bond Map shows that CMBS offer a reasonably attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other bond sectors (see Appendix C). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 16 basis points in December, but outperformed the benchmark by 91 bps in 2019. The index option-adjusted spread widened 4 bps on the month, and currently sits at 57 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer a compelling risk/reward trade-off. An overweight allocation to this high-rated sector remains appropriate. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 22 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a flat fed funds rate over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of January 3, 2020) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of January 3, 2020) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 33 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 33 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 3, 2020) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe”, dated October 31, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights The consensus view seems to be that equities have to cool off in 2020, even if the danger has passed: Recession fears have dissipated as the yield curve has returned to its normal upward-sloping orientation and US-China trade tensions have abated, but equity return expectations are modest following last year’s bonanza. We agree that a bear market is unlikely, but expect a better year than the consensus, … : Bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line, and if the next recession won’t start before the middle of 2021, 2020 should be another strong year for the S&P 500. … even if earnings growth is uninspiring: Multiples almost always expand when the Fed eases from an already accommodative position, and they expand a lot provided the Fed isn’t easing in response to a market bust or financial crisis. We expect that an inflation revival will take the consensus by surprise, but not this year: We think rising inflation will induce the Fed to bring the curtain down on the expansion and the equity bull market, but not until 2021 at the earliest. Feature We spent the last full week before the holidays meeting with clients and prospects on the west coast. As they look ahead to 2020, investors don’t see any major storm clouds on the horizon, but they sense that stocks have run about as far as they can. We agree with the view that neither a recession nor a bear market awaits, but we expect equities will comfortably outdistance bonds and cash. Forced to take a stand on whether the S&P 500 will beat or fall short of the typical consensus expectation for mid-to-high-single-digit gains,1 we would happily bet the over. As we detailed in our last two publications in December, our optimistic take stems from the deliberately reflationary policy being pursued by the Fed and other major central banks. Restoring inflation expectations to its desired range is job number one for the Fed, and its open commitment to doing so ensures that risk assets will have the monetary policy wind at their back for an extended period. The European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan want to rekindle inflation as well, and can be counted upon to maintain easy policy settings. The rest of the world’s central banks will continue to take their cue from their more influential peers, as no one wants the export headwind of a strong currency in a low-growth environment. Earnings growth has been the primary driver of the 11-year-old equity bull market, not multiple expansion. In our base-case scenario, easy monetary policy will encourage multiple expansion, while a less threatening trade climate, and a modest revival in Chinese aggregate demand, will boost economic activity, especially outside of the US. The modest global acceleration provoked by a pickup in Chinese imports will support earnings growth, so that both equity drivers, earnings and multiples, will be moving in the right direction. We anticipate that at least half of the current bull market’s remaining upside will come from multiple expansion, however. Dismaying as it might be for investors with a value bent, our bull thesis is built on the view that today’s fully-to-somewhat-richly-valued stocks will become overvalued before this market cycle is complete. A Stealth Earnings Boom Skeptics of the efficacy of extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy have decried the current bull market as “manipulated,” fed by monetary steroid injections that have inflated asset prices at the cost of undermining the real economy’s future prospects. The data flatly contradict the skeptics’ claims: since the end of February 2009, consensus forward four-quarter S&P 500 earnings expectations have grown at an annualized rate of 9.6% (Chart 1, middle panel), while the forward multiple has expanded at a 4.6% pace (Chart 1, bottom panel). Growth in forward earnings estimates has accounted for two-thirds of the 14.6% annualized appreciation in the S&P 500 (Chart 1, top panel); multiple expansion has only contributed a third. Chart 1A Great Decade For Earnings Chart 2DM Growth Has Been Weak Positioning for a valuation overshoot does not inspire as much confidence as positioning for robust earnings growth. US economic growth has been lackluster since the crisis (Chart 2, top panel), and it’s been downright anemic in Europe (Chart 2, middle panel) and Japan (Chart 2, bottom panel). Few investors foresaw potent earnings growth against that macro backdrop, as aggregate corporate revenue growth ought to converge with nominal GDP growth over time. Only margin expansion could deliver S&P 500 earnings growth above and beyond a meager 4% revenue growth base. As early as 2011, US corporate profit margins looked quite stretched (Chart 3), making further expansion seem improbable. After adjusting for the secular decline in effective corporate income tax rates, corporations’ growing share of national income, the expansion of the high-margin financial sector and the secular decline in debt service costs,2 however, history suggested that profit margins still had room to grow. It would be 2018 before they would peak, thanks in part to the 40% cut in the top marginal corporate income tax rate, and the plunge in debt service costs (Chart 4). Compensation is corporations’ single largest expense, though, and the inexorable decline in labor's share of profits was the key driver (Chart 5). Since China’s entry into the WTO, real wages have failed to keep up with productivity gains (Chart 6), dramatizing the shift of profit share from labor to capital. Chart 3Never Say Die Margin Growth, Nourished On... Chart 4... Rock-Bottom Rates ... Chart 5... And Labor's Woes Chart 6Globalization Has Helped Corporate Profits Profit margins contracted across the first three quarters of 2019, with per-share revenue growth topping per-share earnings growth by an average of three percentage points. We expect that real unit labor costs will rise as the pendulum swings back in labor’s direction in line with an extremely tight job market and a slowdown in outsourcing as globalization loses momentum. Revived activity in the rest of the world can offset some margin pressure from a rising wage bill, however, especially if it helps push the dollar lower. And rising wages aren’t all bad for profits, as rising household income leads to rising consumption, and rising consumption boosts corporate revenue growth. In our base-case 2020 scenario, S&P 500 earnings will grow despite accelerating wage growth. Multiples And The Monetary Policy Cycle Although the S&P 500’s forward multiple is already elevated (Chart 7), the historical relationship between monetary policy and equity multiples argues that re-rating is more likely than de-rating going forward. We divide the fed funds rate cycle (Chart 8) into four phases based on the direction of the fed funds rate (higher or lower) and the state of monetary policy (easy or tight). We are currently in Phase IV, when the Fed has most recently eased policy while policy settings were already accommodative. If margins have finally peaked, multiple expansion will have to assume a bigger role in supporting the bull market. Chart 7Elevated But Not Worrisome Chart 8The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Since consensus earnings estimates began to be compiled in 1979, forward multiples have shrunk when the Fed hikes rates and expanded when it cuts them (Table 1). The empirical results align with intuition and arithmetic: investors should become stingier when the rate used to discount future earnings rises, and more generous when that rate falls. While we believe that the mid-cycle rate cuts are finished and that the fed funds rate will fall no further over the rest of this bull market, continued multiple expansion does not require continued rate cuts. Phase IV usually ends with an extended stretch when the Fed holds the funds rate at its trough level, but forward multiples do not peak until the final stages of the phase. Making the intuition-and-arithmetic statement more exact, investors become more generous when rates fall, and remain that way until a rate hike is a sure bet. Table 1A Consistent Inverse Relationship Away from the last two Phase IVs, when the Fed cut rates in response to the duress issuing from the end of the dot-com mania and the financial crisis, re-rating gains have been significantly larger. Table 2 details the changes in multiples in each Phase IV episode over the last 40 years. Away from the grinding de-rating following the dot-com bust, and the slow re-rating accompanying the tepid post-crisis recovery, multiples have expanded at better than a 17% annualized rate. Voluntary cuts like last summer’s, made when policy is already easy, independent of the imperative to nurse a post-crisis economy back to health, have been awfully good for investors. Table 2Voluntary Cuts Turbocharge Multiples There have been only two instances when the starting multiple has been as high as it was at the start of the latest run of rate cuts. As noted above, conditions in the spring of 2001, when the NASDAQ was a year into its eventual two-and-a-half-year slide, and a recession had just begun, bear little resemblance to conditions today. The fall of 1998, when the Fed delivered a rapid-fire 75 basis points of easing to protect the economy from the potential ramifications of Long Term Capital Management’s failure, looks a lot more like last summer. It is not our base case that the latest round of insurance cuts will push forward multiples to dot-com levels, but they do have scope to expand. The Inflation Timetable It remains our high-conviction view that inflation expectations will not return to the Fed’s target levels quickly. Their path has seemed to provide a nearly perfect real-life case study supporting the adaptive expectations framework, which posits that the recent past exerts a powerful influence on near-term expectations about the future. Inflation is way down the list of investors’ concerns because it has been dormant ever since the crisis, just as it was in the mid-‘60s once memories of high postwar inflation had faded. It conversely remained an acute fear for more than a decade after the Volcker Fed turned the tide in the early ‘80s (Chart 9). Multiples have really surged when the Fed has provided discretionary accommodation outside of periods of distress. The slow but meaningful rise in the trimmed mean PCE (Chart 10, top panel) and CPI series3 (Chart 10, bottom panel) should pull core PCE and core CPI higher over time. In the near term, however, the absence of upward momentum in several leading inflation indicators will likely stretch “over time” beyond the first half of the year, if not the whole year. As tight as the labor market is, unit labor costs have not been able to break out of the range that’s contained them for the last five years (Chart 11, top panel); the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has pulled a disappearing act after a seemingly decisive breakout in mid-2018 (Chart 11, middle panel); and the share of small businesses planning price increases has come off the late 2018 boil (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chart 9Recency Bias In Action Chart 10Inflation's Not Dead, ...   Chart 11... But It's Still Hibernating Investment Implications We spent the holidays reading up on the history of strikes in the United States and believe a shift in the balance of negotiating power from management to labor may be stirring, as a two-part Special Report will soon explore. Such a shift would render wages much more sensitive to a lack of labor market slack. Upward wage pressure could then filter into consumer prices either via a cost-push or demand-pull framework, as corporations either seek to defend margins from higher input costs or try to implement opportunistic price hikes. Cost-push or demand-pull, many investors seem to be dismissing the potential for an inflation revival, especially the ones we met in northern California, where the deeply held consensus view asserts that looming job destruction from artificial intelligence makes broad wage growth all but impossible. Inflation is not an immediate concern, but we expect it will ultimately spell the end of the bull market and the expansion. Allocating a generous share of long-maturity Treasury exposures to TIPS is an excellent way to protect a portfolio against its eventual re-emergence. We advise investors to maintain at least an equal weight allocation to equities to profit from our view that ongoing multiple expansion will surprise to the upside. Risk-friendly positioning remains appropriate, as long as intensifying US-Iran tensions or other geopolitical conflicts don’t negate the positive impact of reflationary monetary policy.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The ten buy- and sell-side strategists surveyed in Barron’s 2020 Outlook, published December 16th, called for an average gain of 4%. 2 Please see the October 2012 BCA Special Report, “Are US Corporate Profit Margins Really All That High?” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 3 Trimmed-mean inflation series operate like figure skating judging in the Olympics – the top and bottom readings are thrown out, and the mean is calculated from the remaining scores.

特別レポート

Feature One of BCA Research’s key geopolitical views since May 2019, outlined recently in our 2020 Outlook, is rapidly materializing: a dramatic escalation in the US-Iran conflict. On January 3 the United States successfully conducted a drone strike against a convoy carrying two high-level targets near the Baghdad International Airport. These were Iranian General Qassim Soleimani and his key Iraqi associate, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes. The former, Soleimani, was Iran’s most influential military and intelligence leader, and one of its most powerful leaders overall. He was the head of the formidable Quds Force, the overseas arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the staunchest military wing of the regime at home and abroad. The latter target, al-Muhandes, was the head of Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah militia and the broader coalition of pro-Iran Shiite militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This coalition was partly responsible for defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Since then it has sought to consolidate Iranian influence in Iraq, pushing back against Iraqi Sunnis and Shia nationalists, and their allies in the US and Persian Gulf. Chart 1Bull Market In US-Iran Tensions The US assassinations follow a significant increase in Iranian and Iran-backed militant attacks against US allies in the Middle East this year. These stem from a breakdown in the US-Iran diplomatic detente that was enshrined in the 2015 nuclear agreement. President Donald Trump revoked this agreement in 2018 and in May 2019 imposed crippling sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and economy — initiating a “bull market” in US-Iran strategic tensions (Chart 1). Recent events show a clear path of strategic escalation — even in the wake of a summer of “fire and fury” and the extraordinary Iran-backed attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery in September. Widespread popular unrest has dissolved the Iraqi government, creating intense competition between Iraqi nationalists, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and Iran’s proxies, led by al-Muhandes and the PMF. This unrest marked a significant challenge to Iran’s sphere of influence and necessitated an Iranian backlash. For instance, al-Sadr’s enemies attacked his headquarters with a drone in early December. Meanwhile Kataib Hezbollah launched a spate of rocket strikes against US and Iraqi bases that culminated in the death of an American contractor near Kirkuk on December 28 — crossing an American red line. The US retaliated with damaging air strikes against Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria on December 29, prompting a PMF blockade of the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. While this was a limited blockade, the US has now retaliated by assassinating Soleimani and al-Muhandes, taking the conflict to a new level. There is every reason to expect tensions to escalate further in the new year. First, the Iranian regime is under severe economic stress due to the US sanctions and broader global slowdown (Charts 2A&B). Domestic protests have erupted in recent years, while the regime struggles with economic isolation, a restless youth population, and a looming succession when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei eventually steps down. This is an existential struggle for the regime, while President Trump may only be in office for 12 months. Public opinion polls show that the Iranian populace blames the government for economic mismanagement, and yet that the renewed conflict with the US under the Trump administration is shifting the blame to US sanctions (Chart 3). Hence the regime will continue to distract the populace by resisting Trump’s pressure tactics. Chart 2ARegime Survival ... Chart 2B... An Existential Challenge     Chart 3US Conflict Distracts From Domestic Woes This tendency will be reinforced by the death of Soleimani, which heightens the regime’s vulnerability while rallying domestic support due to Soleimani’s popularity as a leader (Chart 4). The regime is looking to its survival over the long run. It would be a remarkable shift in policy for Tehran to enter negotiations with Trump, since it would then risk vindicating his “maximum pressure” doctrine, possibly helping him secure a second term in office. Chart 4Hard-Line Soleimani Was Popular (Reformist President Rouhani Is Not) Meanwhile President Trump’s circumstances are apparently urging him to double down on his aggressive foreign policy against Iran. First, while he will not be removed from office by a Republican Senate, his impeachment trial threatens to mar his re-election chances. This is a prime motivation to pursue foreign policy objectives to distract the public and seek policy wins. Chart 5Falling Oil Import Dependency Emboldens US Second, the Trump administration may feel emboldened by the rise of US shale oil production and decline in US oil import dependency (Chart 5). Simulations we published in our December 6 Strategic Outlook show that Iran would have to sustain an oil supply cutoff as large as the Abqaiq attack for four months in order to drive gasoline prices high enough to harm the US economy as a whole. This buffer may have convinced Trump he has plenty of room for maneuver in confronting Iran. Third, Trump undoubtedly feels the need to maintain the credibility of his threats against Iran, North Korea, and other nations given his impeachment, widely known electoral and economic vulnerability, and his recent capitulation to China in the trade war. The clear threat by Iran to create a humiliating US embassy crisis in Baghdad likely struck a nerve in the White House, reviving memories of Saigon under Gerald Ford, Tehran under Jimmy Carter, and Benghazi under Barack Obama. By taking the offensive, President Trump has reinforced the red line against the death of American citizens or attacks on US assets. Nevertheless he now runs the risk of driving Iran into further escalation rather than negotiation. Iran is not yet likely to court a full-scale American attack by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. It is more likely to retaliate via regional proxy attacks, including cutting off oil production, pipelines, and shipping — at a time of its choosing. If Trump’s pressure tactics succeed, it will advance its nuclear program rather than staging large-scale attacks. Investment Conclusions Iraqi instability will worsen as a result of the past month’s events, bringing 3.5 million barrels of daily oil production under a higher probability of disruption than when we first flagged this risk. Supply disruptions there or elsewhere in the region would hasten the drawdown in global inventories and backwardation of prices occurring due to the revival in global demand on China stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. Continued oil volatility, as in 2018-19, should be expected, but the risk for now lies to the upside as Middle East tensions could cause an overshoot. We remain long Brent crude and overweight energy sector equities. Second, the US election — and hence US domestic and foreign policy over the next five years — could hang in the balance if the Iran conflict escalates to broader and more open hostilities as we expect. President Trump is favored for re-election. Yet we have contended since 2018 that the revocation of the Iran nuclear deal was a grave geopolitical decision that could jeopardize Trump’s economy and hence re-election — and that remains the case. Chart 6Trump 'Maximum Pressure' A Gamble In 2020 Trump was elected in part because he is viewed as strong on terrorism, and the confrontation with Iran and its proxies will reinforce that reputation in the short run. Iranian attacks will also boost Trump’s approval rating, other things being equal. However, much can change by November. Jimmy Carter’s election troubles with Iran point to a serious risk to Trump, as the initial surge in patriotic support could turn sour over time if unemployment rises as a result of any oil shocks (Chart 6). Even George Bush Jr saw a dramatic fall in approval, from a much higher base than Trump, despite foreign policy conditions that were more transparently favorable to him in 2004 than any conflict with Iran will be to Trump in 2020. Trump has campaigned against Middle Eastern wars to a war-weary public, so the rally around the flag effect will not necessarily play to his favor in the final count. It is too soon to speculate about these matters — our view remains unchanged — but the Iran conflict is now much more likely to be a major factor in the US election and Iran is certainly capable of frustrating US presidents. This reinforces our base case that Trump is only slightly favored to win. Moreover his foreign policy conflicts — in Asia as well as the Middle East — ensure that global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated despite dropping off from the highs reached last year amid the trade war. We remain long pure play global defense stocks on a cyclical and secular basis. We see gold as the appropriate hedge given our expectation that the trade ceasefire and China stimulus will reinforce a global growth recovery despite Middle Eastern turmoil. Higher oil prices push up inflation expectations and limit any benefit to government bonds.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Feature One of BCA Research’s key geopolitical views since May 2019, outlined recently in our 2020 Outlook, is rapidly materializing: a dramatic escalation in the US-Iran conflict. On January 3 the United States successfully conducted a drone strike against a convoy carrying two high-level targets near the Baghdad International Airport. These were Iranian General Qassim Soleimani and his key Iraqi associate, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes. The former, Soleimani, was Iran’s most influential military and intelligence leader, and one of its most powerful leaders overall. He was the head of the formidable Quds Force, the overseas arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the staunchest military wing of the regime at home and abroad. The latter target, al-Muhandes, was the head of Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah militia and the broader coalition of pro-Iran Shiite militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This coalition was partly responsible for defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Since then it has sought to consolidate Iranian influence in Iraq, pushing back against Iraqi Sunnis and Shia nationalists, and their allies in the US and Persian Gulf. Chart 1Bull Market In US-Iran Tensions The US assassinations follow a significant increase in Iranian and Iran-backed militant attacks against US allies in the Middle East this year. These stem from a breakdown in the US-Iran diplomatic detente that was enshrined in the 2015 nuclear agreement. President Donald Trump revoked this agreement in 2018 and in May 2019 imposed crippling sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and economy — initiating a “bull market” in US-Iran strategic tensions (Chart 1). Recent events show a clear path of strategic escalation — even in the wake of a summer of “fire and fury” and the extraordinary Iran-backed attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery in September. Widespread popular unrest has dissolved the Iraqi government, creating intense competition between Iraqi nationalists, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and Iran’s proxies, led by al-Muhandes and the PMF. This unrest marked a significant challenge to Iran’s sphere of influence and necessitated an Iranian backlash. For instance, al-Sadr’s enemies attacked his headquarters with a drone in early December. Meanwhile Kataib Hezbollah launched a spate of rocket strikes against US and Iraqi bases that culminated in the death of an American contractor near Kirkuk on December 28 — crossing an American red line. The US retaliated with damaging air strikes against Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria on December 29, prompting a PMF blockade of the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. While this was a limited blockade, the US has now retaliated by assassinating Soleimani and al-Muhandes, taking the conflict to a new level. There is every reason to expect tensions to escalate further in the new year. First, the Iranian regime is under severe economic stress due to the US sanctions and broader global slowdown (Charts 2A&B). Domestic protests have erupted in recent years, while the regime struggles with economic isolation, a restless youth population, and a looming succession when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei eventually steps down. This is an existential struggle for the regime, while President Trump may only be in office for 12 months. Public opinion polls show that the Iranian populace blames the government for economic mismanagement, and yet that the renewed conflict with the US under the Trump administration is shifting the blame to US sanctions (Chart 3). Hence the regime will continue to distract the populace by resisting Trump’s pressure tactics. Chart 2ARegime Survival ... Chart 2B... An Existential Challenge     Chart 3US Conflict Distracts From Domestic Woes This tendency will be reinforced by the death of Soleimani, which heightens the regime’s vulnerability while rallying domestic support due to Soleimani’s popularity as a leader (Chart 4). The regime is looking to its survival over the long run. It would be a remarkable shift in policy for Tehran to enter negotiations with Trump, since it would then risk vindicating his “maximum pressure” doctrine, possibly helping him secure a second term in office. Chart 4Hard-Line Soleimani Was Popular (Reformist President Rouhani Is Not) Meanwhile President Trump’s circumstances are apparently urging him to double down on his aggressive foreign policy against Iran. First, while he will not be removed from office by a Republican Senate, his impeachment trial threatens to mar his re-election chances. This is a prime motivation to pursue foreign policy objectives to distract the public and seek policy wins. Chart 5Falling Oil Import Dependency Emboldens US Second, the Trump administration may feel emboldened by the rise of US shale oil production and decline in US oil import dependency (Chart 5). Simulations we published in our December 6 Strategic Outlook show that Iran would have to sustain an oil supply cutoff as large as the Abqaiq attack for four months in order to drive gasoline prices high enough to harm the US economy as a whole. This buffer may have convinced Trump he has plenty of room for maneuver in confronting Iran. Third, Trump undoubtedly feels the need to maintain the credibility of his threats against Iran, North Korea, and other nations given his impeachment, widely known electoral and economic vulnerability, and his recent capitulation to China in the trade war. The clear threat by Iran to create a humiliating US embassy crisis in Baghdad likely struck a nerve in the White House, reviving memories of Saigon under Gerald Ford, Tehran under Jimmy Carter, and Benghazi under Barack Obama. By taking the offensive, President Trump has reinforced the red line against the death of American citizens or attacks on US assets. Nevertheless he now runs the risk of driving Iran into further escalation rather than negotiation. Iran is not yet likely to court a full-scale American attack by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. It is more likely to retaliate via regional proxy attacks, including cutting off oil production, pipelines, and shipping — at a time of its choosing. If Trump’s pressure tactics succeed, it will advance its nuclear program rather than staging large-scale attacks. Investment Conclusions Iraqi instability will worsen as a result of the past month’s events, bringing 3.5 million barrels of daily oil production under a higher probability of disruption than when we first flagged this risk. Supply disruptions there or elsewhere in the region would hasten the drawdown in global inventories and backwardation of prices occurring due to the revival in global demand on China stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. Continued oil volatility, as in 2018-19, should be expected, but the risk for now lies to the upside as Middle East tensions could cause an overshoot. We remain long Brent crude and overweight energy sector equities. Second, the US election — and hence US domestic and foreign policy over the next five years — could hang in the balance if the Iran conflict escalates to broader and more open hostilities as we expect. President Trump is favored for re-election. Yet we have contended since 2018 that the revocation of the Iran nuclear deal was a grave geopolitical decision that could jeopardize Trump’s economy and hence re-election — and that remains the case. Chart 6Trump 'Maximum Pressure' A Gamble In 2020 Trump was elected in part because he is viewed as strong on terrorism, and the confrontation with Iran and its proxies will reinforce that reputation in the short run. Iranian attacks will also boost Trump’s approval rating, other things being equal. However, much can change by November. Jimmy Carter’s election troubles with Iran point to a serious risk to Trump, as the initial surge in patriotic support could turn sour over time if unemployment rises as a result of any oil shocks (Chart 6). Even George Bush Jr saw a dramatic fall in approval, from a much higher base than Trump, despite foreign policy conditions that were more transparently favorable to him in 2004 than any conflict with Iran will be to Trump in 2020. Trump has campaigned against Middle Eastern wars to a war-weary public, so the rally around the flag effect will not necessarily play to his favor in the final count. It is too soon to speculate about these matters — our view remains unchanged — but the Iran conflict is now much more likely to be a major factor in the US election and Iran is certainly capable of frustrating US presidents. This reinforces our base case that Trump is only slightly favored to win. Moreover his foreign policy conflicts — in Asia as well as the Middle East — ensure that global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated despite dropping off from the highs reached last year amid the trade war. We remain long pure play global defense stocks on a cyclical and secular basis. We see gold as the appropriate hedge given our expectation that the trade ceasefire and China stimulus will reinforce a global growth recovery despite Middle Eastern turmoil. Higher oil prices push up inflation expectations and limit any benefit to government bonds.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com